Swampscott Historical Commission Public Hearing Analysis: 299 Salem St. (Glover House)

1. Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda for the Swampscott Historical Commission Public Hearing on April 12, 2023, regarding the General John Glover House at 299 Salem Street was:

1. 0:00:13 Call to Order & Introductions: Opening of the public hearing and introduction of Historical Commission members.
2. 0:01:06 Presentation: Glover Site Timeline & Condition: Chair Nancy Schultz presents the historical context of the site and the findings of recent structural assessments of the Glover House.
3. 0:15:50 Explanation of Historical Commission Role & Demolition Delay Bylaw: Vice Chair Jonathan Lehman outlines the Commission’s authority under the town’s demolition delay bylaw and the purpose of the hearing in determining significance and potential delay.
4. 0:17:25 Public Hearing & Comment Period: Opportunity for members of the public to provide testimony, ask questions, and state opinions regarding the significance of the Glover House and potential preservation options.
5. 2:04:37 Invited Comment from Developer’s Representative: Opportunity for the applicant’s representative (Leggett-McCall attorney) to respond or comment.
6. 2:05:59 Closing Remarks & Adjournment: Final comments from the Commission and adjournment of the public hearing portion. (Note: Commission deliberation and vote scheduled for April 20th).

2. Speaking Attendees

Based on the transcript and contextual knowledge:

• Nancy Schultz (Historical Commission Chair): [Speaker 1]
• Jonathan Lehman (Historical Commission Vice Chair): [Speaker 3]
• Kenneth Schutzer (Attorney, Resident): [Speaker 2]
• Male Representative of Glover’s Regiment (Stated name Barbara Betta, likely misspoken/mistranscribed), Construction Professional: [Speaker 4]
• Judy Anderson (Architectural/Social Historian, Marblehead Resident): [Speaker 5]
• Rob Levine (Resident): [Speaker 6]
• Seamus Daly (Commander, Glover’s Marblehead Regiment, Marblehead Resident): [Speaker 7]
• Resident (Name not stated): [Speaker 8]
• Rick Detwiller (Preservation Architect, hired by Commission): [Speaker 9]
• Richard Willey (Resident): [Speaker 10]
• Historical Commission Member (Name not specified, possibly Ryan Judkins, Brad Graham, or Richard Smith): [Speaker 11]
• Resident (Name not stated): [Speaker 12]
• Cynthia “Cindy” Cavallaro (Direct Descendant of General Glover, Resident): [Speaker 13]
• Meeting Facilitator (Online): [Speaker 14]
• Marie Epstein (Swampscott Library Staff, Resident): [Speaker 15]
• Duncan Maitland (Resident, grew up in Swampscott): [Speaker 16]
• Brian Drummond (Swampscott Historical Society): [Speaker 17]
• Historical Commission Member (Name not specified, possibly Ryan Judkins, Brad Graham, or Richard Smith): [Speaker 18]
• Donna Thompson (Resident): [Speaker 19]
• Samuel Cole (Attorney for Leggett-McCall/Developer): [Speaker 20]
• Molly Connor (Swampscott Historical Society): [Speaker 21]
• Michael Cognata (Member, Glover’s Regiment): [Speaker 22]
• (Note: [Speaker 23] and [Speaker 24] made brief interjections but were not formally recognized speakers.)

3. Meeting Minutes

Meeting: Swampscott Historical Commission Public Hearing Subject: Final Determination of Significance for 299 Salem St. (General John Glover House) Date: Inferred as April 12, 2023 (based on meeting description) Location: Swampscott Town Hall & Virtual

1. Call to Order & Introductions 0:00:13 Chair Nancy Schultz called the public hearing to order and introduced the attending Historical Commission members: herself, Vice Chair Jonathan Lehman, Treasurer Ryan Judkins, Secretary Brad Graham, and members Francesco Riley and Richard Smith attending online.

2. Presentation: Glover Site History & Condition 0:01:06 Chair Schultz provided a historical overview of the 299 Salem St. site, emphasizing its undisputed connection to General John Glover, who purchased it in 1781 and lived there from 1782-1797. She detailed the site’s history from pre-colonial times through the colonial period (Brown family ownership, loyalist ties), Glover’s acquisition, subsequent ownership, its time as the General Glover Inn (1957-1990s), and its neglect over the past 25+ years 0:05:00.

Schultz recounted the recent timeline: the June 2022 Town Meeting zoning overlay approval for a proposed 140-unit housing complex, the Commission’s engagement since Fall 2022 0:06:48, and the March 2023 initial determination that the house is historically significant 0:07:44. She detailed the hiring of Structures North engineers and preservation architect Rick Detwiller using a grant 0:08:10.

Key findings from the structural report were presented 0:08:34: the central house and L-wing are largely original 1700s timber frame structures, with original chimneys and features. Despite significant deterioration from neglect (mold, asbestos, water/beetle damage, especially on the first floor), the engineers concluded the structure is “generally salvageable” and “capable of being disassembled, reassembled, and restored in an alternate location” 0:10:07. Photos of original interior features (door frame, beehive oven, winder stair, paneling) were shown 0:11:03.

3. Explanation of Commission Process 0:15:50 Vice Chair Jonathan Lehman explained the Commission’s mandate under the Swampscott Demolition Delay Bylaw to review demolition permits for structures over 75 years old. He clarified that the Commission has the option to impose a nine-month demolition delay on properties deemed historically significant, intended to allow time to explore alternatives to demolition. He stated the Commission was not voting tonight but would deliberate and vote within 10 days, at their meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 20th 0:18:09. He also mentioned the possibility of waiving the delay if a suitable agreement with the developer could be reached 0:18:39.

4. Public Hearing & Comment Period 0:17:25 The floor was opened for public comment, generating extensive discussion and near-unanimous sentiment favoring preservation.

• Initial Clarifications: Richard Willey asked about the Commission’s preliminary stance; Chair Schultz responded they sought public input 0:19:18. Willey raised the idea of salvaging materials 0:21:17.
• Preservation Arguments & Concerns:
  • Marie Epstein (Library) lamented Swampscott’s track record on preservation compared to Salem and stressed the importance of the site’s context 0:24:36. Chair Schultz noted the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Revolution as a potential opportunity 0:25:49.
  • Kenneth Schutzer (Attorney) emphasized the Commission’s leverage is limited to the nine-month delay and urged its use 0:26:42. He pressed the Commission on whether developer Leggett-McCall had made meaningful concessions (“linkage” or “mitigation”) beyond a planned memorial park 0:31:12. Schutzer argued the park was insufficient and advocated for stronger negotiation, potentially incorporating parts of the building 0:29:12, 0:34:24. He characterized the developer’s initial response to the Planning Board as dismissive.
  • Vice Chair Lehman confirmed developer discussions included a park with some artifact reuse (sundial, posts), but the developer stated the house could not stay on the property under the current plan 0:33:22. Lehman outlined potential negotiation points: a statue, an interior museum, a financial contribution, etc. 0:36:33.
  • The Male Representative of Glover’s Regiment argued strongly for incorporating the house into the development, dismissed structural/contamination issues as manageable with expertise, suggested involving Tedesco Country Club, and offered personal and regimental assistance 0:38:44, 1:09:14.
  • Judy Anderson (Historian) reiterated the critical importance of site context (0:46:26, “site-specific is really important”) and the educational potential of the house. She supported keeping it on site if possible.
  • Seamus Daly (Glover’s Regiment Commander) stated the Regiment strongly supports preservation, preferably on-site but accepting relocation over token gestures. He offered the Regiment’s help with fundraising and potential seed money for a viable plan, envisioning the house as a future meeting place 0:52:25.
  • Cindy Cavallaro (Glover Descendant) urged unity and determination to use the delay to preserve the house on site 0:56:53.
  • Rick Detwiller (Preservation Architect) advocated using the delay period for more study and exploring alternatives, including leaving the house in place within the development. He stressed its unique features and historical associations 0:59:11.
  • Multiple residents (Donna Thompson 1:06:47, Duncan Maitland 1:12:51, Resident [Speaker 8] 1:48:48, Rob Levine 1:51:55) expressed passion for preservation, frustration with past losses and development pressures, concerns about traffic (Thompson), and ideas for adaptive reuse (inn, museum, tourism).
  • Molly Connor and Brian Drummond (Historical Society) voiced support and asked practical questions about moving costs 1:15:30 and the effectiveness of the delay 1:20:47.
• Debate on Strategy: A significant dynamic emerged regarding the best approach. Schutzer consistently argued for imposing the delay as a non-negotiable first step to force talks 1:02:19. Chair Schultz floated a phased approach (disassemble, store, plan) 1:29:08, which Schutzer strongly opposed as premature defeat 1:30:32. Commission Member [Speaker 11] highlighted the need for a concrete plan if the delay is imposed and posed the dilemma of on-site preservation without access versus relocation with access 1:32:00, 1:36:04. The Glover’s Regiment Representative stressed the Town/Commission should be in the “driver’s seat” 1:36:38.
• Cost & Feasibility: Estimates for moving a structure like the nearby Pitman House were cited ($65k-$100k) 1:16:01, though Commission Member [Speaker 11] cautioned the Glover house presented additional costs (remediation, disassembly) 1:19:31. Experts asserted feasibility despite challenges 0:38:44, 0:59:11.
• Developer Position Clarification: Chair Schultz and Vice Chair Lehman reiterated the developer’s stance that the house cannot remain on site per the approved Planning Board plan 0:31:12, 1:04:45. The developer agreed to fund the preparation of a state historical inventory form (Form B) 1:47:37.

5. Developer Representative Comment 2:04:37 Invited to comment, Samuel Cole, attorney for Leggett-McCall, stated the developer has been receptive throughout the process and looked forward to continued conversation 2:05:25.

6. Closing Remarks & Adjournment 2:05:59 Chair Schultz thanked attendees for their input, acknowledged Cole’s comment indicating openness to further discussion, reminded everyone of the Commission’s upcoming virtual meeting on April 20th for deliberation and decision, and adjourned the public hearing.

Observations: The hearing was marked by a powerful and unified public call for the preservation of the General Glover House. Attendees demonstrated deep historical awareness and passion. Significant debate occurred not on whether to preserve, but how – on-site integration being the strong preference, but moving or salvage considered viable alternatives. The effectiveness of the nine-month demolition delay as a negotiating tool was a central theme, with strong urging for the Commission to utilize it. Multiple offers of community partnership and expertise were made. Frustration with the property’s long neglect and the perceived developer-driven process was evident. The developer’s brief statement left their specific intentions regarding the house unclear but signaled willingness to continue dialogue.

4. Executive Summary

The Swampscott Historical Commission held a public hearing on April 12, 2023, regarding the fate of the historically significant General John Glover House at 299 Salem Street, currently slated for demolition as part of a 140-unit housing development by Leggett-McCall. The hearing preceded the Commission’s decision on whether to impose a nine-month demolition delay.

Key Takeaways for Swampscott Residents:

• Glover House Significance Confirmed: The house, dating to the 1700s and home to Revolutionary War hero General John Glover from 1782-1797, was definitively established as historically significant. A recent engineering assessment confirmed its core structure is salvageable despite decades of neglect 0:10:07.
• Overwhelming Public Support for Preservation: Attendees spoke passionately and nearly unanimously in favor of saving the house. The strong preference was to keep the structure on its original site 0:46:26, possibly integrated into the new development. Moving the house to another location or salvaging key elements were discussed as secondary options.
• Demolition Delay as Key Leverage: Numerous speakers, notably Attorney Kenneth Schutzer, urged the Historical Commission to impose the legally allowed nine-month demolition delay 0:15:50. This was framed as the primary tool the town has to negotiate with the developer for a better outcome than the currently planned memorial park 0:26:42, 1:02:19. The Commission’s decision is expected at their April 20th meeting 0:18:09.
• Developer’s Stance & Concessions: According to the Commission, the developer, Leggett-McCall, has stated the house cannot remain on-site under the Planning Board-approved plan 0:31:12, 1:04:45. They have offered a memorial park incorporating some site artifacts 0:33:22 and agreed to fund historical documentation 1:47:37. Their attorney expressed openness to continued dialogue 2:05:25.
• Community Offers of Partnership: Notably, Glover’s Marblehead Regiment 0:52:25 and various individuals with expertise in history, preservation, and construction 0:38:44, 0:59:11, 1:09:14 offered significant support, including potential fundraising, expert advice, and volunteer efforts to save the house.
• Why This Matters: This situation represents a critical juncture for preserving Swampscott’s Revolutionary War heritage. The potential loss of the Glover House, arguably the town’s most important site from that era, highlights the conflict between development pressures and historical preservation. The strong community mobilization seen at the hearing suggests a potential fight ahead, contingent on the Commission’s upcoming decision and the formulation of a viable, potentially fundable, preservation plan. The outcome will likely impact future preservation efforts in Swampscott.

5. Analysis

This Historical Commission hearing vividly displayed the tension between Swampscott’s rich history and its modern development pressures, centered on the fate of the General Glover House.

• Unified Public Mandate, Divergent Paths: The most striking dynamic was the near-total consensus among public speakers favoring preservation. This unity, however, masked significant divergence on the method of preservation. The “keep it on site” argument, powerfully articulated by historian Judy Anderson 0:46:26 and echoed by others, emphasized irreplaceable context. Counterarguments implicitly acknowledged the difficulty of integration, favoring moving the structure (voiced by Glover’s Regiment Commander Daly 0:52:25 and facilitator 1:39:02) or, as a last resort, salvage (Chair Schultz’s phased plan 1:29:08). This reflects a classic preservationist dilemma, intensified by the advanced state of the developer’s plans.
• The Power and Peril of the Delay Bylaw: Kenneth Schutzer’s legal perspective dominated the strategic discussion. His repeated insistence on the 9-month delay as the sole meaningful leverage 0:26:42, 1:02:19 appeared highly influential. He effectively framed the situation as a hardball negotiation where yielding ground prematurely (e.g., discussing disassembly before securing the delay) would be fatal 1:30:32. The Commission members, while acknowledging the bylaw, seemed more focused on exploring potential “middle ground” compromises 0:36:33, 1:22:14, possibly reflecting awareness of the practical hurdles (funding, site location, developer intransigence) and the risk of the developer simply waiting out the delay, as referenced regarding White Court 2:00:12.
• Developer Strategy & Commission’s Position: Leggett-McCall’s representative remained largely silent, offering only a brief, non-committal statement at the end 2:05:25. This suggests a strategy of adhering to their approved plan unless compelled otherwise by the delay and subsequent pressure. The Historical Commission appeared somewhat caught in the middle – armed with crucial information about the house’s salvageability 0:10:07 and clearly hearing the public’s demand, yet constrained by the developer’s firm position 0:31:12 and the procedural reality of the Planning Board’s prior approval 1:04:23. Their emphasis on needing a “plan” 1:36:04 if a delay is imposed was realistic but could also be perceived as a potential prerequisite that might be difficult to meet quickly, potentially weakening the delay’s immediate impact.
• Effectiveness of Arguments: Preservation advocates effectively countered the narrative of the house being beyond saving, leveraging expert testimony 0:10:07, 0:59:11. The emotional and historical arguments were potent 0:56:53, 1:48:48. The offers of partnership from credible groups like Glover’s Regiment 0:52:25 provided a crucial element of potential viability. Conversely, the developer’s position rested primarily on the existing approvals and implied economic arguments, lacking public appeal.
• Underlying Frustration: The hearing also served as an outlet for broader frustrations regarding Swampscott’s track record on preservation 0:24:36, 1:17:42 and a perceived lack of teeth in town processes to protect historical assets against development (Schutzer’s critique of the overlay bylaw 0:29:12, 2:00:39). The sentiment that this significant site was “buried from history” 1:25:17 until the 11th hour added to the sense of urgency and grievance.

In conclusion, the hearing mobilized strong community opposition to the demolition and provided the Historical Commission with a clear public mandate to act. However, the path forward remains fraught with challenges, requiring the Commission to strategically deploy its limited leverage while navigating complex practicalities and a developer seemingly content with the status quo unless forced to change course. The offers of partnership represent a significant potential asset if a viable preservation plan can be formulated within the potential delay period.